AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raju, J.—The writ petitioner who is a Tenants Co-operative Farming Society originally represented by its President but now represented by
its Special Officer has filed the above writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in R.P. 7/82
dated 16-8-1982 and of the second respondent in R.T.A.A.P. No. 1/81 A2 dated 29-6-1981. The writ petitioner in the affidavit filed in support
of the same has stated as follows:� The fifth respondent, which is a public trust within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of
Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ''Public Trusts Act'' , is the owner of the lands in question and other
large extent of lands and the writ petitioner is the cultivating tenant in respect of those lands. As a matter of fact, S.45 of the Public Trusts Act
deems certain tenant farming societies specified in Schedule II to be governed by the provisions of the Act as specified in Schedule II and the fifth
respondent is shown as item No. 14 in the said schedule. There is no dispute among the parties that the fourth respondent who is a member of the
petitioner-society was the cultivating tenant in respect of the lands in question comprised in R.S. No. 79/2 measuring about 2.67 acres of No. 62
Tirupugaloor village in Nannilam Taluk. The fourth respondent, was found to be in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling prescribed for a
cultivating tenant and to get over the same, appears to have subleased the lands in question in favour of the third respondent. On being appraised
of the position, the Special Deputy Collector (Public Trust), Tiruvarur, by his proceedings dated 3-10-1979, after referring to the fact that the 3rd
respondent is cultivating the land after getting the same from the fourth respondent, held that the transfer of right not channelised through the Public
Trust, cannot be a recognised one. The said authority also noticed the fact that the third respondent has not executed any lease deed nor got his
name recorded as a tenant in the Record of Tenancy Right and that the present cultivation was treated as benami and has to be ordered to be
reverted to the Public Trust. While doing so, the said authority observed that if the third respondent owns not more than five standard acres in all
capacity, he may be recognised as tenant obtaining a lease deed executed by him and on his failure to do so, directed the Public Trust to take
possession of the lands and lease out the same to eligible persons within the time stipulated therein.
While so, the third respondent herein made an application to have his name recorded as a tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Record of ''Tenancy Rights Act'' and the same was rejected
by the Record Officer by his order dated 13-11-1980. On an appeal filed by the third respondent before the second respondent, by an order
dated 29-6-1981 the appellate authority set aside the order of the Record Officer and ordered that the third respondent can be recognised as a
tenant fit to be registered in the approved record of tenancy rights. On a revision filed by the writ petitioner, before the first respondent, by order
dated 16-8-1982, the order of the appellate authority was confirmed and the revision was rejected. Hence the above writ petition.
Mr. K. Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the orders of the first and the second respondents
directing the third respondent to be recorded as a cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy Rights cannot be sustained and are liable to be set
aside. The submission of the learned counsel is that S.2 (8)(i)(b) of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act defines a tenant in relation to any land to
which the Public Trusts Act applied to mean a cultivating tenant as defined in S.2(5) of that Act. The provision of S.2(5) of the Public Trusts Act
defines a cultivating tenant to mean a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any
land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, and includes any such person who continues to be in possession of the
land after the determination of the tenancy agreement or the heir of such person contributing his own physical labour or that of any member of his
family in the cultivation of such land and a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation
of such land. It specifically excludes any intermediary or his heir. The provisions of Ss.7 and 8 of the Public Trusts Act provide reversion of certain
lands in the contingencies and circumstances specified therein to the public trust and the obligation of the Public Trust to lease out such land within
such period as may be prescribed to a cooperative farming society or any person who is already a cultivating tenant or any person who is not being
already a cultivating tenant executes an agreement with the public trust is the manner contemplated therein. S.36 of the said Act provides that there
a tenant farming society has been registered under S.35, the possession of all lands, held by a member in respect of which he becomes a member
of the tenant farming society, shall, with effect from the date of such registration and for so long as the registration of the tenant farming society is
not cancelled, stand transferred to the tenant farming society which shall thereupon hold such land and use it for agricultural purposes. As referred
to already, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner-society is a tenant farming society to which the provisions of Ss.36, 40, 43 and 45
get attracted.
Having regard to the said provisions of the Public Trusts Act, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the land in question shall revert
back if found in excess of the cultivating tenant''s ceiling area, in the hands of the fourth respondent and in any event even if the Public Trust gets
land, it shall be leased out first to the petitioner-society and that the fourth respondent had no competency or authority to sublease the land to the
third respondent and the third respondent, consequently could not claim in law any right as a cultivating tenant and have his name registered at a
cultivating tenant in the Record of Tenancy Rights. While meeting the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the third respondent sought to place reliance upon the proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector (Public Trust), Tiruvarur dated 20-6-1981
made under S.14A(i) of the Public Trusts Act granting lease of the lands to the third respondent on account of the failure of the then President to
carry out the directions issued under S.12(b) of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that the said proceedings have not been challenged and
are in full force and effect.
After a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, I am of the view that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. The third respondent cannot claim to have been lawfully or validly inducted into the lands in question even as a subtenant
by the fourth respondent. As the provisions of the Public Trusts Act referred to the above stand in respect of lands of which a co-operative tenant
farming society was a tenant, a member of such society who was in possession of certain extent of land which, by the operation of the statute, are
taken out of such tenant''s possession, has no right whatsoever to deal with or meddle with the lands. On the other hand, if at all the third
respondent could claim to get a lease of the lands, it could be only from the petitioner-society which is indisputably a tenant of the lands in question.
A tenant can induct a sub-tenant only if such tenant possessed powers of such sublease. Not only the relevant bye-laws of the Society seem to
prohibit an individual member of the Society from subleasing or transferring the interest in the lands leased out to such member, by the operation of
the provisions of the Act pertaining to cultivating tenant''s ceiling area, the fourth respondent ceased to have any right or control over the lands and
recognising a sublease at her instance without reference with rights of the society would amount to only rendering the requirements of the statute
otiose unenforceable so far as a recalcitrant tenant is concerned.
On the facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed in the impugned orders, it could be seen that there is no legally acceptable evidence
worth acting upon to prove that the third respondent was cultivating the lands. Neither his name has been earlier recorded in the Record of
Tenancy nor his name finds a place in the village cultivation accounts nor are there any receipts evidencing payment of rent by him directly to either
the society or the trust. The receipts produced admittedly only stand in the name of the fourth respondent and consequently there is absolutely no
material whatsoever to give credence to the stand of the third respondent that he has been in possession of the lands lawfully inducted therein as a
lessee or a sub-lessee. Further under the provisions of S.2 (5) of the Public Trusts Act, the person claiming to be a cultivating tenant should be
doing so under a tenancy agreement, express or implied of any land belonging to another, meaning thereby the person who is entitled in law to
lease or sublease the property concerned is one who holds either proprietary interest or tenancy rights. Having regard to the conclusions arrived at
by me that as per the provisions of the Public Trust Act, the petitioner society alone can be considered to be such tenant, there is no question of
the third respondent claiming to be a sub-tenant of somebody else who cannot in law be recognised as a tenant. Even if the owner has to lease it,
he could do so only in favour of the farming society. The orders of the first and the second respondents are liable to be set aside on this short
ground and are, therefore, hereby set aside. So far as the rights claimed by the third respondent under the proceedings of the Special Deputy
Collector (Public Trust), Tiruvarur dated 20-6-1981 are concerned, the same is not directly in issue before me in these proceedings. If in law it is
open to the said third respondent to take any steps to have the same executed in the manner known to law, the order in this writ petition shall not
stand in his way. But at the same time, it is made clear that in any such proceedings taken by the third respondent, the writ petitioner society shall
be at liberty to challenge or contest in defence the legality, validity and the binding nature of such order so far as the writ petitioner is concerned.
Subject to these observations and clarifications, this writ petition is allowed. But there will be no order as to costs.